Activists have once again called into question the Pornography Law as popular singer Gisella Anastasia faces jail after a sex tape was leaked to the public.

Gisella became a public sensation after a 19-second video clip went viral in November. The video, which was reportedly taken in a hotel room in North Sumatra in 2017, also features a man identified only by the initials MYD.

Jakarta Police spokesman Sr. Comr. Yusri Yunus said that both Gisella and MYD had told the police that they were indeed the couple featured in the video. “She has admitted that it was her on the video,” Yusri said last Tuesday as quoted by kompas.com.

Two days after the video was uploaded, Febriyanto Dunggio and Pitra Romadoni -- two lawyers not representing Gisella -- reported eight social media accounts of undisclosed owners that had allegedly been spreading the video on the internet, claiming that it had generated public concern, among other issues.

To the police, Gisella reportedly explained that the video was recorded for personal documentation, and she had no intention of reselling it or circulating it to the public. Although the police have yet to catch the culprits who leaked the sex tape, they have already named Gisella and MYD as suspects in the case after investigating them as witnesses last Tuesday, which has drawn criticism regarding the police treatment of leaked sex tape case victims.

Read also: Porn law claims first high-profile offender

Riska Carolina, an activist representing the Civil Coalition Against Sexual Abuse (KOMPAKS), lambasted the authority for criminalizing Gisella instead of treating her as a victim.

“The case could be considered as gender-based cyberviolence since her video was not meant for the public and it was leaked without her consent. The authorities should focus on the people who deliberately violated her privacy,” Riska told The Jakarta Post on Saturday.

Data from the National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan) showed that there were 281 incidents of gender-based cyberviolence in Indonesia in 2019 and 2020 --  a yearly average of 140 cases, higher than the 97 cases in 2018.

In most cases, the abuse came in the form of threats, in which the culprits often intimidated the victims by threatening to publish their intimate videos or pictures online, Komnas Perempuan said.

Read also: Anti-porn law victimizes mostly women: Coalition

Riska also questioned the authorities for charging Gisella under Article 4 (1) of the Pornography Law, as she believed that Gisella's situation did not meet the requirement to be charged under a provision that prohibits any individual from producing, distributing, importing, offering, selling, renting or providing pornography in any form.

“However, the [explanation chapter of the] provision exempts those who create pornographic content for personal use, so she cannot be indicted using this article.” Riska said.

Long before its enactment in 2008, the law sparked criticism from civil and women’s groups, artists and communities in East Indonesia, who feared it would stifle freedom of expression, the traditional arts and culture of local people. Activists have also said that the law violates human rights and targets the wrong people and that authorities interfere too much in people’s privacy.

Caught up in the heated debate surrounding the enactment of the Pornography Law at the time was jaipongan, a traditional folk dance from West Java. Its then-governor once considered using the law as a legal basis for forbidding jaipongan dancers from wearing “sexy” costumes and executing "provocative" dance moves.

Read also: Constitutional Court upholds divisive pornography law

The controversial law has so far been challenged at the Constitutional Court five times by various petitioners who either sought to fully repeal the law or to annul some provisions -- all of which were rejected by the court.

The latest was four months ago when a woman from Garut, West Java, filed a petition against Article 8 -- which forbids a person from “deliberately, or with their consent, becoming an object or model of pornographic content” -- on the grounds that it was, in practice, discriminatory to women. The petitioner, identified only by her initials PA, claimed to be the victim of revenge porn and was charged by the police for violating the provision in question after she reported her ex-husband to Garut Police for distributing their sex tape without her consent. The Constitutional Court ruled that the provision in fact protected the principle of equality before the law.

The most notable petitions were presented by dozens of individuals, including experts and artists, and civil and women’s groups in 2010. But they also lost the battle when the Constitutional Court overruled their case. The only female justice in the nine-member bench at the time dissented.